ONCA 2025

The appellant, Josiah Lowe, appealed his sentence of three years' imprisonment for three counts of robbery, possession of property obtained by crime over $5,000, and wearing a disguise with intent.

He argued that the sentencing judge misapplied the law regarding anti-Black racism, erred by prioritizing denunciation and deterrence, and erred in crediting his bail conditions.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the sentencing judge’s application of the law or principles and dismissed the appeal.

The appellant, J.A., appealed a decision of the Superior Court of Justice upholding a finding by the Consent and Capacity Board that he was incapable of consenting to treatment with antipsychotic medication.

The Court of Appeal found no reversible error in the lower court’s decision, upholding the dismissal of the appellant’s adjournment request and the application of the relevant legal principles regarding capacity and consent.

The appeal was dismissed.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed the appeal from the motion judge’s order dismissing an anti-SLAPP motion under s. 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act.

The court found that the expression at issue—a private comment between spouses—did not relate to a matter of public interest.

The court also denied leave to appeal the motion judge’s costs order, upholding the finding that the self-represented respondent had not established a basis for costs.

The decision affirms the high threshold for overturning discretionary costs decisions and clarifies the application of the public interest requirement in anti-SLAPP proceedings.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed Susan Hutchison’s appeal from an order requiring her to pay spousal support to Matthew Bosrock and her application for leave to appeal the trial judge’s costs award.

The court found no error in the trial judge’s assessment of income, consideration of mortgage repayments, or imputation of income.

The court also upheld the costs award, finding that the trial judge properly considered the divided success at trial and the time spent on the main issues.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed the appeal of Canguard Group Limited and others from a partial summary judgment order declaring a mortgage on the respondent’s property void as a fraudulent conveyance.

The court found no error in the motion judge’s reliance on the evidentiary record, including affidavits, and held that the appellant’s failure to respond or provide discovery justified summary judgment.

The court also rejected arguments regarding the scope of the order and the appropriateness of partial summary judgment.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed Adan McIntosh’s appeal from the dismissal of his motion to vary a parenting order.

The court found no material change in circumstances warranting a variation, emphasizing the ongoing risk of wrongful removal of the children to Australia and Mr. McIntosh’s failure to pay support and costs.

The court also addressed the children’s preferences, the financial and emotional impact of the litigation on Ms. Kim, and the principles governing variation of parenting orders.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario considered whether the statutory requirement that federal election Returning Officers reside in the ridings they administer violates the right to liberty under section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The majority held that the right to liberty in section 7 does not extend to a free-standing right to choose one’s residence outside the context of the administration of justice, and dismissed the appeal.

The dissent would have found that the residency requirement was overbroad and infringed section 7, and would have granted the appeal.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed the appeal of Robert Ashley Williams from his conviction for second degree murder.

The appellant argued that the trial judge erred by not leaving the partial defence of provocation with the jury and by misdirecting the jury on the defence of self-defence.

The court found that the evidence did not support leaving provocation with the jury, as the appellant's actions made the victim's response foreseeable and there was no air of reality to the loss of self-control or suddenness elements.

The court also found no error in the trial judge's self-defence instructions.

The appeal was dismissed.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed the appellants’ motion for a stay of a receivership order appointing a receiver under section 129 of the Securities Act.

The court found that while there was a serious issue to be tried, the appellants failed to establish irreparable harm and the balance of convenience did not favour a stay.

The decision reviews the background of the receivership, the test for a stay, and the evidence presented, ultimately concluding that the public interest and interests of third parties, including mortgagees, would be harmed by a stay.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed a motion by 13 respondents to re-open an appeal regarding the Law Society of Ontario’s decision to void their licensing exam results and registrations due to exam integrity breaches.

The court found that the moving parties had not been denied judicial review, that their complaint was about the adequacy of reasons rather than a rare circumstance justifying re-opening, and that the interests of justice did not require reconsideration.

The court held that the Law Society’s actions were consistent with its by-laws and that the moving parties’ arguments had been addressed.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed the appeal by Gurnam Multani and Surjit Multani from the orders of Justice William S. Chalmers.

The appellants had signed forbearance agreements acknowledging the amounts owing under several loans from Dramel Limited.

The court found no error in the motion judge’s reliance on the forbearance agreements to confirm the amounts outstanding and held that the fees charged did not contravene the Interest Act.

The appeal was dismissed and costs were awarded to the respondent.

The appellant, David Kawal, appealed his convictions for attempt murder, robbery with a restricted or prohibited weapon, and kidnapping with a restricted or prohibited weapon.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed all grounds of appeal, finding the jury verdicts reasonable and the trial judge’s instructions proper.

The court found no merit in arguments regarding the reasonableness of the verdicts, the instructions on circumstantial evidence, eyewitness identification, or the elements of the offences.

The sentence appeal was previously abandoned.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed Gerrard De Souza’s appeal from convictions for indecent assault and sexual assault.

The appellant raised three grounds of appeal, all relating to the trial judge’s assessment of credibility and reliability.

The Court found no error in the trial judge’s approach, holding that her findings were grounded in the evidence and not in stereotypes or improper reasoning.

The Court also found no error in the trial judge’s handling of inconsistencies in the complainant’s evidence or in her rejection of the defence theory of motive to fabricate.

The conviction appeal was dismissed.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario considered the Crown’s appeal from an acquittal on a charge of sexual assault.

The Crown argued that the trial judge relied on myths and stereotypes about how a sexual assault victim should behave, particularly in finding it significant that the complainant returned to sleep in the same bed as the accused after the alleged assault.

The Court found that the trial judge did err in law by relying on such stereotypes, but held that the error did not have a material bearing on the acquittal, as the trial judge’s reasonable doubt was also based on other concerns about the complainant’s reliability and inconsistencies in her evidence.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant, Harvin Fraser, appealed his conviction for sexual assault, arguing that the trial judge misapprehended the evidence regarding whether the complainant’s sexual interaction with the appellant included oral sex as well as sexual intercourse.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the trial judge’s assessment of the evidence and dismissed the appeal, deferring to the trial judge’s credibility and reliability findings.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario allowed the appeal of Herbert and Jacqueline Watkins, setting aside the order dismissing their action and the associated costs order.

The motion judge had dismissed the action for failure to appoint counsel or deliver a notice of intent to act in person under r. 15.04(8) of the Rules of Civil Procedure and for delay under r. 24.01.

The Court of Appeal found that the removal order for the appellants' counsel was not effective, as it was not properly served, and that the motion judge erred in relying on r. 15.04(8).

The finding of inordinate and inexcusable delay was also found to be unreasonable due to confusion over representation.

Costs of the appeal were awarded to the appellants.

This decision concerns the continued effect of a non-publication order under section 517 of the Criminal Code and section 110 of the Youth Criminal Justice Act in the context of an appeal.

The Court confirms that the publication ban remains in effect and that the full decision will only be made publicly available once the order ceases to apply.

In the meantime, the decision is available for inspection at the Registry of the Court of Appeal for Ontario.

The appellants appealed an order giving directions regarding the distribution of funds remaining in trust after the sale of Driftwood Beach Park Limited's assets and the reimbursement of funds by certain appellants to the company.

The Court of Appeal found no basis to interfere with the motion judge’s determinations, including findings regarding the purchase and customization of a 2022 Honda, salary for James Kemp, and compensation for Ms. Kemp.

The appeal was dismissed, and costs were awarded to the respondents.